Future NHL hall of Famers

[rohara99]

Mic drop.

What Ranford said :thumbsup:

 

[isles4life]

Pierre Turgeon, Keith Tkachuk and Jeremy Roenick should be in the Hall.

 

[Fred Bear]

Disagree, you have to consider when the player played. Verbeek was a great player but never even a top 20 NHL player at his peak. He never even made, first team AS and was scoring goals when guys like Leeman scored 50. If he played todays game he likely finishes his career closer to 350 goals then 500.

HHOF, IMO should equal competing for hardware, and generally being considered one of the best players at their position in the game for 10+ years.

Dino Ciccarelli wants to remind you he's in the HOF. Granted, he made it to 600 goals playing through the run and gun 80s, but no hardware outside of his HOF plaque. Top 10 goal scorer only twice - 4th and 5th. He's actually further down the list of career game-winning goals than Verbeek.

I believe that at some point, all of the 500 goal scorers will get in, but it may take some time for some of those guys.

 

[dismonkey1]

Games 1045
Goals 377
Assists 420
Points 797

Nope.

I have to agree with a no vote on C. Perry. Oh, and a no vote on Captain Canada as well. Both good but not great.

 

[japhi]

Games 1045
Goals 377
Assists 420
Points 797

Nope.

Agreed. Both him and Getzlaf were on a clear HOF pace but neither has aged well. Getzlaf if he can find some mojo has a chance - he was a top 15 player for close to a decade, in a dead puck era. His 1K points would adjust to 1300 or so from the 80s. So I suspect he squeaks in.

 

[sdpdesign]

I think Chara retires after this year and gets in in 2025 first ballot? Offensive stats aren't eye opening and plus minus is okay (+288) for the career, but has the Norris and the Cup. Also, It is just hard to think about all those good Bruins teams and to not think about him just anchoring that defense...and I don't even like the Bruins lol...

Chara was on the Islanders early in his career and that didn’t help any of his stats. Part of the Yashin trade to Ottawa. He left NYI with a -61 +\- and only had one as bad (-21) in his 1st yr with Boston.

Might not be 1st yr, but probably 2nd.

 

[japhi]

Dino Ciccarelli wants to remind you he's in the HOF. Granted, he made it to 600 goals playing through the run and gun 80s, but no hardware outside of his HOF plaque. Top 10 goal scorer only twice - 4th and 5th. He's actually further down the list of career game-winning goals than Verbeek.

I believe that at some point, all of the 500 goal scorers will get in, but it may take some time for some of those guys.

Well 600 is more then 500, and Dino was almost a PPG. I think he is a marginal HOF at best.

I'm not a big fan (for the hall, not as a hockey player) of guys like Verbeek or Marleau or any other guy that put up 60 point average for 20 years. Give me a guy like Mogilny, Bure, Neely who burned insanely hot for a short period over a guy that slugged out 1500 games to get 1000 points. I think it devalues the Hall to have guys in that weren't considered elite players during their playing days.

Phil Housley selection drives me nuts. He was maybe a top 5 dman 3 years, most years barely top ten. Defensively he was an embarrassment - guy couldn't clear the front of the net if his life depended on it. But he stuck around for 20 years, sucked up a bunch of points in the 80s and voila, an all time great.

 

[The Big M]

I think the bare minimum for a forward to be selected these days is 500 goals. As exciting as Mogilny was, he didn't achieve that, nor did Alfredsson. Corey Perry? Nah...
Bubble players would be guys like Getzlaf, Joseph, Doan.
My picks for the next few years are:
Tkachuk
Henrik Sedin
Daniel Sedin
Marleau
Chara
Thornton
Roenick (if the voting committee can get past their biases)
Jagr
Lundqvist

M.

 

[creasecollector]

Well 600 is more then 500, and Dino was almost a PPG. I think he is a marginal HOF at best.

I'm not a big fan (for the hall, not as a hockey player) of guys like Verbeek or Marleau or any other guy that put up 60 point average for 20 years. Give me a guy like Mogilny, Bure, Neely who burned insanely hot for a short period over a guy that slugged out 1500 games to get 1000 points. I think it devalues the Hall to have guys in that weren't considered elite players during their playing days.

Phil Housley selection drives me nuts. He was maybe a top 5 dman 3 years, most years barely top ten. Defensively he was an embarrassment - guy couldn't clear the front of the net if his life depended on it. But he stuck around for 20 years, sucked up a bunch of points in the 80s and voila, an all time great.

I totally get what you're saying, and an argument can be made for both sides, but making the NHL is insanely difficult (the skill & luck involved, etc) - not to mention staying there. On the grand scale of it all, only a small majority a players stick around that long. Most will have suuuuuper short NHL careers.

So if a player slugs it out for almost two decades, they deserve to be recognized for it with their career numbers.

 

[PRoy33Collector]

I'm interested to see how the election of a player like Guy Carbonneau, who never scored even 60 points as a Center, but won 3 cups and 3 Selke's, dictates things going forward. I do plead ignorance on his election, though, as I am not very familiar with his career, so I assume I am missing something astronomical in his individual career that vaults him ahead of the likes of Mogilny, Roenick and Turgeon. I guess it's the Cups?

 

[will-411]

The HHOF is the easiest of the pro sports halls to get into, and is the most mysterious from a selection process. Forget about some unknown number line to meet - check into a players past and see who he knew and who is advocating for him and that'll give you a better indication of bubble HHOF potential than stats.

Cory

 

[odjickfan]

I'm interested to see how the election of a player like Guy Carbonneau, who never scored even 60 points as a Center, but won 3 cups and 3 Selke's, dictates things going forward. I do plead ignorance on his election, though, as I am not very familiar with his career, so I assume I am missing something astronomical in his individual career that vaults him ahead of the likes of Mogilny, Roenick and Turgeon. I guess it's the Cups?

I think Carbonneau made its place in the HOF during the 1993 Finals. After Game 1, he asked Demers to be playing against Gretzky, and the great one was very quiet for the rest of the finals after 3 solid rounds.

 

[Fred Bear]

Well 600 is more then 500, and Dino was almost a PPG. I think he is a marginal HOF at best.

I'm not a big fan (for the hall, not as a hockey player) of guys like Verbeek or Marleau or any other guy that put up 60 point average for 20 years. Give me a guy like Mogilny, Bure, Neely who burned insanely hot for a short period over a guy that slugged out 1500 games to get 1000 points. I think it devalues the Hall to have guys in that weren't considered elite players during their playing days.

Phil Housley selection drives me nuts. He was maybe a top 5 dman 3 years, most years barely top ten. Defensively he was an embarrassment - guy couldn't clear the front of the net if his life depended on it. But he stuck around for 20 years, sucked up a bunch of points in the 80s and voila, an all time great.

I think that's what makes it interesting. I didn't think about until Ciccarelli and Recchi got into the Hall. It's important to remember that a fraction of hockey players make it to the NHL and less than half of those players make it past 5 seasons. While we may not think of these guys as 'exciting', they played in the best league in the world, for 3-4x as long as the average player, and scored, on average, at a much higher level than the 'average' player.

Housley, as an example, outscored both Brian Leetch and Chris Chelios for their careers. He wasn't the most defensive defenseman, sure, but where would his point totals have been if he'd had significant ice time with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman (like Paul Coffey)? I think a guy who, at the close of 20+ year career, scored 15 goals and 1/2 pt/game as a 37-yr old was probably worth a look as a Hall-of-Famer.

I totally get what you're saying, and an argument can be made for both sides, but making the NHL is insanely difficult (the skill & luck involved, etc) - not to mention staying there. On the grand scale of it all, only a small majority a players stick around that long. Most will have suuuuuper short NHL careers.

So if a player slugs it out for almost two decades, they deserve to be recognized for it with their career numbers.

This exactly.

So, I'm a stats guy and here are some...

7848 (as of early 2020) players have played in 1 NHL game
~4.7% of players who play high-level junior hockey make it into an NHL game
The average NHL career is 5 seasons
49 (if I counted right) players have played 20 or more NHL seasons (~0.6% of players)
21 players have played 1500 or more NHL games (~0.25% of players)

When you look at it in this light, does Matt Cullen deserve consideration? I think the gut reaction is a hard 'no', but think about it... We as fans don't think he was a 'great', but NHL GMs and coaches played him for 21 seasons, 1516 games and he scored almost every other night (0.48 pts/game career). Was Matt Cullen an elite player in 2018-19? No. Was Matt Cullen an elite hockey player? He did something only 20 other players in league history did by playing in over 1500 NHL games. I think 1 day, just as we look back at early players in the league, Matt Cullen will be seen as an 'elite' hockey player.

 

[creasecollector]

I think that's what makes it interesting. I didn't think about until Ciccarelli and Recchi got into the Hall. It's important to remember that a fraction of hockey players make it to the NHL and less than half of those players make it past 5 seasons. While we may not think of these guys as 'exciting', they played in the best league in the world, for 3-4x as long as the average player, and scored, on average, at a much higher level than the 'average' player.

Housley, as an example, outscored both Brian Leetch and Chris Chelios for their careers. He wasn't the most defensive defenseman, sure, but where would his point totals have been if he'd had significant ice time with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman (like Paul Coffey)? I think a guy who, at the close of 20+ year career, scored 15 goals and 1/2 pt/game as a 37-yr old was probably worth a look as a Hall-of-Famer.


This exactly.

So, I'm a stats guy and here are some...

7848 (as of early 2020) players have played in 1 NHL game
~4.7% of players who play high-level junior hockey make it into an NHL game
The average NHL career is 5 seasons
49 (if I counted right) players have played 20 or more NHL seasons (~0.6% of players)
21 players have played 1500 or more NHL games (~0.25% of players)

When you look at it in this light, does Matt Cullen deserve consideration? I think the gut reaction is a hard 'no', but think about it... We as fans don't think he was a 'great', but NHL GMs and coaches played him for 21 seasons, 1516 games and he scored almost every other night (0.48 pts/game career). Was Matt Cullen an elite player in 2018-19? No. Was Matt Cullen an elite hockey player? He did something only 20 other players in league history did by playing in over 1500 NHL games. I think 1 day, just as we look back at early players in the league, Matt Cullen will be seen as an 'elite' hockey player.

Wow. That's awesome.

Thanks for these numbers!

 

[neilnijjar]

7848 (as of early 2020) players have played in 1 NHL game
~4.7% of players who play high-level junior hockey make it into an NHL game
The average NHL career is 5 seasons
49 (if I counted right) players have played 20 or more NHL seasons (~0.6% of players)
21 players have played 1500 or more NHL games (~0.25% of players)

When you look at it in this light, does Matt Cullen deserve consideration? I think the gut reaction is a hard 'no', but think about it... We as fans don't think he was a 'great', but NHL GMs and coaches played him for 21 seasons, 1516 games and he scored almost every other night (0.48 pts/game career). Was Matt Cullen an elite player in 2018-19? No. Was Matt Cullen an elite hockey player? He did something only 20 other players in league history did by playing in over 1500 NHL games. I think 1 day, just as we look back at early players in the league, Matt Cullen will be seen as an 'elite' hockey player.

I dont think we can mix up longevity and elite - those to me are two separate things

 

[will-411]

I dont think we can mix up longevity and elite - those to me are two separate things

I agree - you can have an elite length of a career, but that doesn't on it's own make you an elite player and Hall of Fame worthy.

Cory

 

[japhi]

I'm interested to see how the election of a player like Guy Carbonneau, who never scored even 60 points as a Center, but won 3 cups and 3 Selke's, dictates things going forward. I do plead ignorance on his election, though, as I am not very familiar with his career, so I assume I am missing something astronomical in his individual career that vaults him ahead of the likes of Mogilny, Roenick and Turgeon. I guess it's the Cups?

He is one of the best defensive players of all time. Defensively he was a genius, in an era of wide open hockey he was a true shut down C.

 

[japhi]

I think that's what makes it interesting. I didn't think about until Ciccarelli and Recchi got into the Hall. It's important to remember that a fraction of hockey players make it to the NHL and less than half of those players make it past 5 seasons. While we may not think of these guys as 'exciting', they played in the best league in the world, for 3-4x as long as the average player, and scored, on average, at a much higher level than the 'average' player.

Housley, as an example, outscored both Brian Leetch and Chris Chelios for their careers. He wasn't the most defensive defenseman, sure, but where would his point totals have been if he'd had significant ice time with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman (like Paul Coffey)? I think a guy who, at the close of 20+ year career, scored 15 goals and 1/2 pt/game as a 37-yr old was probably worth a look as a Hall-of-Famer.



This exactly.

So, I'm a stats guy and here are some...

7848 (as of early 2020) players have played in 1 NHL game
~4.7% of players who play high-level junior hockey make it into an NHL game
The average NHL career is 5 seasons
49 (if I counted right) players have played 20 or more NHL seasons (~0.6% of players)
21 players have played 1500 or more NHL games (~0.25% of players)

When you look at it in this light, does Matt Cullen deserve consideration? I think the gut reaction is a hard 'no', but think about it... We as fans don't think he was a 'great', but NHL GMs and coaches played him for 21 seasons, 1516 games and he scored almost every other night (0.48 pts/game career). Was Matt Cullen an elite player in 2018-19? No. Was Matt Cullen an elite hockey player? He did something only 20 other players in league history did by playing in over 1500 NHL games. I think 1 day, just as we look back at early players in the league, Matt Cullen will be seen as an 'elite' hockey player.

I like the way you've framed this and I find it compelling.

But for me, to be in the Hall you should have dominated for at least a decade. Considered elite while you played, one of the best each year you played.

Speaking of longevity and dominance (playoffs), how about Claude Lemieux? 158 playoff points and 21 years!

 

[CKcardtrader]

HHOF is a joke. Actually most HOF are jokes when you don't have criteria instead of votes. People saying Roenick is not in because he was salty with reporters. Longevity should be honored as it is about best careers. I think they need to set milestones goals, assists, points. Then you are in. Then a seperate case can be made for careers cut short or hockey specialists like Guy. Plus I hate how valued cups are on a player as its a team game and rarely has a player been responsible for his team winning it all. Most are lucky to have 19 other players thatcame together for a run.

 

[Fred Bear]

I dont think we can mix up longevity and elite - those to me are two separate things

I can agree with you, there is a difference. I do think there is a crossover, though, at a certain point where longevity = elite skill. A guy who grinds around the league for 10-12, maybe even 15 seasons may not be elite. I think that's where Cullen's case becomes interesting. He played 71 games and averaged over 11 minutes of ice time as a 42 year old in his final season. If you are choosing a 42 year old over a 20 year old in the NHL, there's got to be a reason why. The NHL and NHL roster slots are too competitive to throw $650k and ice time at a guy as a favor.

I like the way you've framed this and I find it compelling.

But for me, to be in the Hall you should have dominated for at least a decade. Considered elite while you played, one of the best each year you played.

Speaking of longevity and dominance (playoffs), how about Claude Lemieux? 158 playoff points and 21 years!

I think "dominated" is the troublesome word. I feel like I know in the abstract what you mean, but there are a lot of players in the HHOF who wouldn't meet that criteria.

Truth be told, my opinion on this has changed through the years. I used to feel like the Hall of Fame should only be for the very, very best. But just like we've learned with the advent of advanced statistics, there's more to players than just points. In my opinion, there's room in the Hall of Fames to recognize guys who were the best at what they did for their teams, even if it wasn't scoring, and especially when they play at a high level for a very long time.

I think it 'freshens up' the conversation, too. Arguing over 500 goal scorers is meh. People want to point to dominance, hardware, etc. etc. What about Kris Draper? Faceoff specialist for Detroit, won 4 Cups, won a Selke, played for 20 years... Again, the easy answer is 'no', but... he played 20 seasons and was still playing at a high level at the end of his career - he won over 60 percent of his faceoffs as 37 year old, over 56% as a 39 year old.